Think about how much more crowded those streets would be if every one of those bicycles was a car instead. If you're a car driver then you should be glad that all these people are riding bicycles and that the city is making it easy for them.
Every time I'm waiting at a pedestrian crossing with other people until four cars have passed I have to think about the absurdity that those four drivers make 12 pedestrians stop when all 16 people could have easily shared the space without obstructing one another.
and how much? cyclist need 7 times less space than cars and pedestrian need 14 less space than cars, so any of these transportation ways would be less in size than cars
Paris has changed so much over the decades for the better. It used to be a bleak city with no greenery, car exhaust and trash filling the air. It is far more greener and cleaner than I have ever seen. Not everything is perfect, but it has improved weather those who drive around by car like it or not.
Googled Eric du Camont. Turns out that he is the French equivalent of Nick Freeman. A person whose income literally depends upon people having car crashes and needing representation. Fewer cars, fewer jobs for criminal defence lawyers who specialise in traffic law. He's not biased at all, I'm sure...
I love driving my car or renting one in holidays but in large cities it makes no sense, each time I go to Paris using my car would be hell and crazy expensive and I think this is the way to go, no one ever said that large cities should accommodate everyone's car even more for free. I don't like some of leftist Hidalgo policies but her work to make Paris more pedestrian and bike friendly is just brilliant, it literally placed Paris as a reference in western Europe for fast bike and pedestrian infrastructure development, within few in Europe...
@@shrgn engine is engine it's going to be out loud than crowds (except protests/riots of course) like just one honk or one acceleration and become a stand-alone sound you would hear
Car people are also pedestrians too! Cars don't run red lights frequently or drive on the pavement. If they obeyed the traffic rules, then there wouldn't be an issue.
I’m a Parisian and I’m not a fanatic; and I don’t have a car because i don’t need one. Suburbans can drive their vehicles to the closest metro station then use public transports just like us. Delivery vehicles, taxis and emergency vehicles should be the only ones in our streets
I love the idea of driving to the nearest metro/bus station to wean people off of cars. My city has several under-used FREE park&rides. They’re lacking secure bicycle storage and restrooms, but could be great 15minute centers. The fares aren’t free yet, but if the fares became free first and the parking was charged after a while I’d be quite pleased! Imagine people slowly withdrawing from car travel: first driving to the park&ride, then cycling to it, and if it became a mini city center maybe they would get what they need right there. Society would be so much happier and healthier.
Will grand Paris express help people in the suburbs in getting into the city? Like will it have stations that are not connected to lines already going into Paris?
To achieve this well cheap parking fees as well as subsidies to public transit are needed, which is opposite to what is happening in Paris’s Metro unfortunately
Bingo! Does everyone in the world need that train vs bus vs bike vs car vs pedestrian space visualization graph? Apparently yes! That taxi driver should be happy with less cars on the road because that means more space for her!
I live in the suburbs of Paris, the arguments opposed to Paris' policy are completely overblown. There are 13 RER lines and commuter train lines that extend more than 50km from the center of the city, allowing many workers to get inside Paris much quicker than by car. Some people are even able to commute by train, daily, from outside the Paris region. You don't need a car to work or shop in Paris, there are jobs and shops outside of Paris too, and Paris can't be blamed for the region's conservative government's lack of political will to offer car-free mobility outside of Paris. I've been living 50km away from Paris, I didn't have a bus to take me to the RER on Sundays, and that was the region's fault, not Paris'.
3 месяца назад
I'm sorry, but most of the RERs are already overcrowded, so imagine if you move people from the car to the RER ? I am not against removing cars from the city, but this has to be done in agreement with the suburb, not against. I think the restructuration of Paris should be done by Ile de France Mobilité which sees bigger pictures than the city of Paris
Actually only few portions of RER lines have capacity issues, most of them run just fine even during rush hour. Why would the suburbs have to decide how people live in Paris? Should people living in Paris also have their word at how people in the suburbs are living as well? Île-de-France Mobilités is already doing a bad enough job at taking care of the transit system, I wouldn't trust them at urban planning, especially after the disinformation campaign they did in late 2020 against Paris' wish to create carpool and bus lanes on the périphérique, telling instead in that campaign that Paris wanted to remove lanes...
In my six months of living and working in Paris (most of it living in 16e and working in Saint-Denis), I was in overcrowded metro, RER, Transilien, tram or bus exactly once, and that was when I went to see Paris Motor Show down near Porte de Versailles.
Driving through central Paris is nuts. It's stressful and inconvenient. Why anybody would insist on keeping car traffic in central Paris is beyond me. Metro and buses take you everywhere and I refuse to believe that all these drivers are disabled or old people who have no other choice.
@@Zedprice but bullying cars is much easier than extending public transport, which became more crowded and less comfortable. Cycling in bad weather is for masochists.
Cities don't hate cars, cyclists don't hate cars. Geometry hates cars. As a mode of transportation, it is the most inefficient one spatially as it takes up too much space per person. No amount of street space can fix that
And that's just the geometry. When you crunch the numbers of the potential energy in oil used to move (in most cases) a single human, the energy efficiency is around 0.5%. Even an EV is going to be under 2%. If anybody were to say, let's build our cities to depend on a transportation system that is that wasteful, in so many ways, we'd have never done it in the first place. The problem is that cars work quite well in small towns and people can't imagine giving them up as cities grow or when they move to a city from a rural area, as so many have.
As an American watching this, this is awesome, I hope they continue. When Americans started building suburbs and driving into cites it ruined our cities, they bulldozed buildings for parking lots and our streets got very wide, that is why you don't see many people walking in America. We are completely dependent on our cars.The average U.S. driver spends 97 hours in traffic a year, this is why I am moving to Europe, I don't want to spend my life in traffic.
@@m.3257Matt has the right mindset, so would likely be welcomed in Paris, but I'm sure he would rather see some of the better ideas from Europe copied and adapted into American cities.
Their argument is that the suburbanites work in the city, so they should at least have some say in what happens to the transportation system in that city. Which is a fair argument, but it doesn’t change the fact that those suburb dwellers can simply drive their cars to the nearest pubic transit hub and then take transit the rest of the way into the city.
@techcafe0 Worse still, suburbanites always think it's the other way around, and have this illusion that the suburbs fund the cities, and you can't dissuade them with evidence.
@@billyfink1234 Because designing everything so that your mobility is dependent on owning and maintaining a private vehicle is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is the option to choose which mode of transport you want to take - not defaulting to driving a car because the built environment requires you to.
@@billyfink1234this is a lame argument. With high quality public transportation you don’t need to look at a schedule, the service might come every 10, 5 or even 2 minutes, meaning you arrive at the station and probably won’t have to wait much for a vehicle.
Why are people outside of Paris so entitled by how Paris govern themselves.. they blamed parisian when they do not have access to public transport while they are the one voting for wrong politicians
Parisians have been telling the rest of France how it should be governed for decades, why shouldn't the rest of France have the right to tell Paris how it should be?
@@robinhood4640 Parisians have never told the rest of France how it should be goverened, Parisians can only vote for Paris mayor (and only since 1977, they couldn't even vote for one before that!), not for other cities' mayor.
3 месяца назад
Because the suburb is intimately connected to Paris, everything that is done in Paris will have a far-reaching impact that goes well outside of Paris. Paris is not an island in France. For example, some restructuration did not remove traffic jams but moved them elsewhere. That is why these kind of policies should be managed at the regional level. To take an example, it is like if the City of London decides to manage its road disregarding of the Greater London. For me, this highlights a problem in the way the city and the regions are governed.
Well except car traffic and congestion did indeed decrease. That's logical, as the excess use of cars is the main cause of congestion: if you enable people to use a more efficient mode of transportation, you'll have less cars, therefore less congestion.
3 месяца назад
@slasherfun decrease IN Paris, but has increased outside
Around 70% of the commutes between paris and its suburb are made using public transit (approximately 20% by car)! The public transportation network between paris and its suburb is already pretty good, and DW is clearly lying on this point. The real problem is commuting between suburbs, which is currently difficult to do without a car (and the main goal of the new public transit project was to adress this issue).
The problem is that people will always use the travel option that is either cheaper, or faster, or more comfortable, or more reliable (depending on person's preferences and conditions). For many places in Paris's suburbs, motorcycles and scooters are faster than public transport (although probably not cheaper), which makes people mechanically use these more. You cannot just ask people to use transit based on their good will. Either the alternative (public transit/ cycling) needs to be made more convenient (that's the "carrot" strategy, e.g. new metros in the suburbs, more protected bike lanes etc) or the less preferable options (cars/motorcycles) have to be made less convenient (that's the "stick" strategy, e.g. taxes for driving big vehicles, fares for parking your motorcycles, making streets one-way etc...).
Everybody wants to be able to drive their car. And everybody hates trafficjams. Apparently people fail to connect these two dots, when sitting in a car.
@@Zelda-sr6ro depends, Paris has a lot of fast and cheap infrastructure for cyclists (don’t get me wrong, they also have some expensive infrastructure) while montreal has been installing protected infrastructure for a longer time that also got the time to develop, now montreal has Dutch traffic controlled intersections that’re very similar to the Dutch ones, Paris has yet to do this.
@@miles5600 It's true, but mainly concentrated in some neibourghoods, like the Plateau or only on some major streets. Also, Montréal is improving for bike infrastructures, but Paris has always been better for pedestrians.
Car drivers, who have for most of the past century been the recipients of ridiculous levels of subsidy to support their driving habit, see it as tyranny to lose even a fraction of that subsidy, and face the need to actually pay for the infrastructure and the space they use. I'm facing the same tension in my own city, and car drivers here don't like it one bit either.
You are joking, right? Fuel and vehicle taxes are a main income source for governments all over the world . In Germany gas and vehicle taxes generated over 47 billion € in 2022. On the other hand, trains are highly subsidized and couldn't survive without government support. Your comment as well as the documentary are highly biased.
@m.3257 In the US, the amount of subsidy varies depending on the segment. The interstate highway system gets 50% of its funding from fuel taxes and road use fees. For secondary highways that drops to about 30%. For arterial roads it's about 20%. All the rest of their funding comes from subsidy. By the time you get down to residential streets the funding comes almost entirely from property taxes. If drivers had to pay the actual unsubsidized costs for their driving habit then they'd do it a lot less. Don't just look at the raw amount of the funding raised by fuel taxes and road use fees, look at the percentage of total funding they generate, and where the difference comes from. As for trains, yes they're subsidized. All forms of transit, without exception, are subsidized. Train tickets are also heavily taxed, though the total varies from country to country. Air travel is also very heavily subsidized, some say even more than trains.
@@m.3257 OP is spot on in his original comment and his response. There are some many costs to support road infrastructure that are hidden from drivers and government don't even bat an eye spending billions on road infrastructure through general tax revenue that is paid partially by people who don't even own cars. How is this fair?? Every time you get on the train, you need to pay. The same is not true for roads. Drivers should need to pay road tolls and parking fees everywhere thier vehicles exist. The economic data does not back up offering free roads and parking spaces to car drivers to boost economic activity; it kills downtowns and makes us reliant on sprawling, money burning suburban development that needs to get further propped up by tax payers. Yes, there is some revenue generated by fuel taxes etc, but it doesn't come remotely close to covering the true costs of maintaining car dependent infrastructure. As soon as public transit has a bad month, governments talk about cutting service. On an under utilized road though, they just spend more tax dollars trying to keep that infrastructure intact, with no plan to pay for it except to continue to dip into general tax revenue. The facts do not care about your feelings.
A highly biased report. They give 80% of interview time to detractors of the city's plans. None of the detractors have any solutions to present in regards to massive traffic jams and deadly air quality which were rampant in Paris long before the bike and pedestrian infrastructure were introduced. The only advocate given screen time is the deputy mayor. Very disappointing reportage by DW.
Conservatives never have solutions. They seem to think that either the situation is fine just as it is or there is no solution. At least no solution that directly benefits them.
Thanks for your feedback. I'm surprised to hear that you found the report biased against the changes happening in Paris. Did you watch the whole report? There are quite a few voices in favor of the changes: the mayor, the deputy mayor, the APUR representative, the city planner, the architect. Of course there are also voices taking the opposite position, but that's because our aim is to produce a balanced report that gives space to all sides of the debate.
@@DWREV I agree! This video came across as very targeted and anti-bike. It's not that pro active transportation weren't given screen time but that they were only given snippets while bad actors were given MUCH more screen time. Pretty disappointed in this coverage
Maybe the shots of people enjoying and moving about the city by foot and bike sufficiently represents the advocates of the city's plans? Maybe not all communication is verbal?
8:10 Sarah: Traffic in paris is getting worse. there are too many cars. 8:20 also Sarah: banning vehicles from the city is not a solution. 8:44 also Sarah: Bikes are the problem.
Sarah: They (the bikes) come by at warp speed. More probably 15-25km/h, while the speed-limit is 30km/h and I would not be surprised in the slightest if she wants to go back to a speed limit of 50km/h.
@@kai_v_k Problem is that a lot of bicyclists don't know or care about riding responsibly. I've never been hit by a car, but plenty of bikes. Of course, that is preferrable to the former, but I'd rather have none, which is possible if people would just start acting responsibly.
@@FantasticOtto Several times (almost several times a day) I avoided being hit by cars and cyclists by braking and swerving, same with pedestrians. However I got hit twice by a car, once by a pedestrian and never by a bike. In general I would call the annecdotal evidence. If you look at fatalities cars vs. cyclist/pedestrians is several times higher than cyclist vs. cyclist/pedestrian or pedestrian vs. cyclist. You are right about people of any mode of transport being a menace and having seemingly never heard of responsibility.
@@kai_v_k It's a question of parameters really. When asking what is worse, there could be a case made for both bicycles and cars. If we're talking number of incidents, I would venture a guess that far more bicycles hit people than cars, but in most cases a bicycle making contact with pedestrian results in a "hey, watch where you're going" and both move on. So the numbers are probably far greater than we realize. Getting struck by a car however means probable injury or worse, and a report to the authorities. So in that sense cars are the bigger threat. It's a matter of perspective. Personally, when moving about a large metropolis, my issue with cars is that they are loud, smelly and obtrusive. My issue with bicycles is that I don't feel safe around them, since many riders have no consideration for pedestrians and close to zero situational awareness. They approach large groups of people and don't even slow down. And since people can't hear them coming, there's bound to be a crash now and then.
I'm a car enthusiast originally from the US and I now live in Amsterdam. I love cars and driving but dense city centers are not ideal for cars. It's usually not even enjoyable to drive in these cities. I do like to drive to and park in Paris (I've made a video about this on my channel) but I am not against the idea of making more Parisian streets pedestrian only zones. Cars have become bigger and heavier (large SUVs, EVs, etc.) and I don't think these ancient city streets can handle this anymore.
There are too many people buying SUVs and those people who buying it for status, they are a problem. Those who buy it for lots of luggage, people carrying including children and of course living in the countryside where there is no road then that's a valid excuse. But in England so many people including the rich people who live in London buying SUVs for status are being wasteful.
Paris is building the biggest expansion of public transit for suburbs on the continent in decades. And all this one sided reportage talks about it is that it won't be finished in time for the olympics.. It's geometrically impossible to let everyone from the suburbs go to work in the city center with a car. Cars just need way too much space. If you want to go to work in the center of a major city by car, go and move one of those socially isolated and segregated suburbs in the united states and be "happy"
The biggest expansion in decades ? The Moscow metro was expanded with something close to 200km over the past decade. Including a new Moscow Central Circular Line of 54km. They are similar projects as GPE, but with less tantrum ..
@@lws7394 I think he meant in a non totalitarian regime, of course China also built a crazy number of metro and high speed train lines but totalitarian regimes have a cheat code for easy planning and decision making....
@lws7394 Yes is the biggest in decades and in Europe. Plus this new mega infrastructure project is going to add four new lines which are totalling 200km of tracks.
@@user-hb9jh6it1j Extreme case here but maybe you can find more convenient hours? If the job is so inappropriate for your handicap maybe you should talk to the HR/managers to get something more adapted to you. I'm fairly sure solutions exist...
I take a train into Paris center and bike to my office 3 times a week. It is great. I save thousands of dollars on a car and gas. I save years of my life by avoiding the stress and lethargy of driving everywhere. There’s plenty of room in thousands of cities for those who want to lives their lives sitting in 6 lane traffic. Paris is leading the way in human progress, like it always has.
How are you bringing your kid to school!? How do you take your grandparents to hospital!? Do you go on a date or romantic dinner with your wife on a bike!?
@@borisstefanov2983 kids can often take the city bus, walk or bike (if they're super young you can do with them). Cars are not illegal and there can be exceptions for older folks, two people can go to the same place on a bike, train, bus or by walking I dont see why you'd need a car for that.
@@borisstefanov2983 kids can commute on their own, mainly by bike, bus, or train. Ambulances are cheap in most places outside the US. Dating while riding a bike is actually very romantic, ESPECIALLY when you're in Paris.
The car drivers are like the sibling that's had the playstation controller for 4 hours and then starts to cry about how important it is to 'share' when the younger sibling gets the controller for five minutes.
12:16 "People living in Paris voted for this decision. They didn't ask people from outside Paris to vote" "Anne Hidalgo is just the mayor of Paris, which is only 2 million inhabitants in an agglomeration of 11 or 12. So there's the first problem which is the governance of this agglomeration." Looks like the government is working as intended. If you wanted Anne to care about what the suburbs want, then those suburbs should be part of Paris proper. If not, then the mayor has no legal obligation to pander to them. They can't even vote her out! Plus Paris is building metros serving the suburbs too, so stop moaning.
While the report is good, I have a strong impression that it is slightly biased towards car owners and their struggle in adapting to change. I am from Rome and personally I would give an arm and a leg for even half of the positive changes towards bike and pedestrian infrastructure in my city, which instead is made deadly, noisy and polluted by an absolute infestation of ugly car infrastructure and massive traffic jams, which makes turns the beautiful city centre into a stressful nightmare. We really need less cars on the street and that is achieved only by good alternatives to driving, so bravo Paris.
Very much so. Look out for content on channels such as Not Just Bikes, Oh the Urbanity! and CityNerd. Also, just search on 'urbanism'. Much better info, zero pandering to petrol heads.
Yeah the bikes are killing people. Like so many. Like so scary. These bikes are so much more dangerous then the 3 ton vehicles. Of course lets ignore fact completely.
'Bedfellow' cyclists are every pedestrians nightmare. And a motorist is required by law to keep a certain distance from a cyclist but a cyclist is not required by law to keep a certain distance from a pedestrian.
@@philfluther2713 in my country cyclist and pedestrian don't usually share lanes. And way they do they must adjust their pace to the pedestrian so they don't become a danger. So it's exactly the same. On the other end the risk is far greater when being in an accident with a car due to obvious reasons. Those are the facts
I wonder why Eric de Caumont and others talk about banning all cars. This is not the target. Did they know what they are suppossed to talk about? Why was this wrong fact not corrected. This leaves a wrong impression. There was also spoken about traffic jams once, was it any better in the past? I have not heard about that. So this is also misleading.
That's their argument style... You talk about A, they rant about B... It's never fair or targeted. They are what people in the biz call "bad faith debaters"...
The problem is the noise from Didier's motorbike. This guy is a psychopath to feel entitled to make such an awful noise and disturb thousands of people.
Especially considering how ridiculously expensive one of those harleys is, he could easily sell it and get a nice electric motorcycle instead. Save on gas, save on noise, save on parking. Win all around.
Commuters that bring their car to a city are really destroying the city for its inhabitants. Paris must improve its access to the suburbs by public transport and create parkings there for people to leave their cars there. They must solve the commuting issue first and foremost. But yeah, commuters out.
It is coming. The 'problem' is that the old road and rail routes converge on Central Paris. Everybody trying to travel between outer areas must interchange centrally at Chatelet-Les Halles for Metro/regional rail, or the Périphérique inner ring road. Even the A86 outer ring road is not far enough away from the city centre. Hopefully the Grand Paris Express Métro routes will do much to connect the suburbs and bring relief to the centre. My opinion - Route Nationale N104 should be completed to become a true orbital Autoroute for Grande Paris, much like the M25 motorway which encircles London.
Bikes are not in the taxis' lane. Taxis are "allowed" to use the dedicated Bike and Bus lane. This taxi driver is living in a state of confusion. Taxi drivers have no respect for the privilege they are granted to use our Bike and Bus lanes. Send them back to the car lane if they don't appreciate their exemption.
With cities keeping on growing the ONLY solution is to focus on less cars, since there is no space for more cars, where would they make extra roads and parking spaces in historical centres? The same is happening in Amsterdam, loving it with less cars, more green, bigger bike roads ans more pedestrians.
Building a cycling infrastructure in a car Centric city is always difficult. Some oppositions would create bogus excuses along the way, that's natural. But in the long term, even they will see how beneficial it is to have clean air, better cycling infra and public transportation systems in a city over cars. Cars can still drive around, but not as the main transport. You still need logistical purposed vehicles for deliveries and businesses. The 15 minute city conspiracies are by the way funny and ignorant, as we have those already in The Netherlands.
this german journalist is absolutely diletant , on what evidence he saying that made pedestrian and public transportation is technicaly problematic? its absolutely false , car infrastructure much more expensive and inneffective than public transport _ cycling and walking, maybe he need some education and reframe his car-depended mind
The Paris metro system is the worst in Europe for accessibility. The vast majority of its stations lack escalators or lifts, and unfortunately, the situation isn’t improving. Surprisingly, this issue doesn’t receive much attention.
@@akfsx Like all public transportation in Paris région, the métro is under the Île-de-France région full responsibility, its elected officials being neither young nor socialists.
@@slasherfun Paris mayor is a member of socialistic party and your SUV referendum is a quite typical thing when a decent cabrio or 4x4 Subaru is counted like a SUV. Envy.
3 месяца назад
It is one of the oldest metro system in the world and the oldest if you take the average aged of all the lines. Why? Because most if the lines were built at the beginning of the 20th century, when these questions of accessibility were not an issue. Now, the city cannot do a lot about it.
@@akfsx Paris mayor is a member of the socialist party, but Paris mayor is not in charge of Paris métro system: the Île-de-France president is in charge of it, and she's definitely not socialist at all. A decent cabrio is not a SUV, but a "4x4 Subaru" is an SUV... by definition!
Thank you Paris for leading the way. Public transportation plus bikes and scooters is the future. But they should give priority to pedestrians and to public transport, not to elecric bikes that are as fast, as heavy and thus as dangerous as traditional cars and motorcycles. Pedestrians should feel safer and freer, not more endangered.
Well, it's not just Paris, Marseille, Lyon and Toulouse, major cities in France have also made this choice and many other cities are following this trend. Everyone faces the problem, people in city centers vs. people in the outskirts and suburbs. Although urban transport is excellent in France, many suburban residents have no choice but to drive their car to work.
I can bet that all those people who complain that there is too many bikes would swear up and down if they were to be stuck for hours in a massive car traffic that would happen with more cars then bicycles,
It is not the first time that DW throws shade at Germany's Western neighbors under the guise of fair reporting. I can't help but feel that if those policies at work in Paris were in place in Munich, Hamburg, or Berlin, DW would call them revolutionary and laud them as the way to go. Germany is turning into an old person watching itself decay but taking pleasure in criticizing more dynamic people.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm surprised to hear you found the report biased against the changes in Paris. Did you watch the whole report? We presented several proponents of the changes, including the mayor, the deputy mayor, the APUR representative, the city planner, and the architect. Of course we also included critics to ensure a balanced view, aiming to represent all sides of the debate fairly.
I have cycled in Munich as a tourist and Munich has many separated bike paths. In 90 % of the streets I was separated from cars, cycling in safety. And in those 10 % I had to share the road with cars, that was fine too. German drivers are very nice considerate people. Saying Hi from the Netherlands.
@@marcosfraguela honestly, I feel mopeds are more of a nuisance in those regards. Moped emissions are so much worse than any 4-wheeled vehicle nowadays.
@@marcosfraguela It has more to do with exhaust treatment. Small gas engined-powered 2-wheel vehicles aren't held to the same standards as passenger cars, so no catalytic converter, no particulate filters, no combustion control or gas recirculation.
Easy fix. Give them 100% tax credit refund on the purchase of any electric bicycle, electric micro cars and delivery vans. No driver's license or insurance mandatory, but recommended if you don't wanna be sued after an accident. Charge cars a hefty toll to use the city streets. This move will also convert people from gas to electric. Two birds, one stone. Sorry for the analogy birds.
That's basically already the case. You don't have a 100% refund on an electric bike but you can get subsidies for it, depending on your income [1]. Regarding the toll, it is kind of applied through parking fees. It is EXTREMELY expensive to park in Paris and actually the marginal price (price of an extra hour) increases as you park longer [2].
You are right, E-bikes have a maximum range back and forth of 25 km/ 15 miles (range for convenience of commuting, not the maximum range). So for more people living in Paris' suburbs can use an e-bike.
In the Netherlands we had this proces of banning the cars in city center about 30 years ago. Car minded people where against plans but they didn't succeed. It turns out that the cities became more liveable and healthy. Now nobody wants to turn the clock back. I will say proceed Paris with your good plans!!
I like this idea: designing cities like lifestyle centers, which are walkable while easy to access by cars, with the assists of public transits or park-and-ride. The concept of good and evil doesn't bring us anywhere, it is on the border of contradicting ideas the true solution lies.
Yes, Paris probably has the best alternatives to cars already. They said at the beginning: 9% of trips are made by cars, meaning all others means of mobility are working great!
Go to Paris then and try taking unsecure, inefficient (strikes, incidents, frequencies), dirty, inaccessible (also knowing there’s almost no free parking to park in suburbs) transportation system. Even though there’s some better, it’s not enough at all. It’s really like the whole city and state: big projects and amibitions, but nothing happening to fix some big already existing issues. Why do they try to remove alternatives as long as the others aren’t working properly? I’m 100% sure that if that happened, most people would leave their car behind
Our daughter lives in Paris with her boyfriend. Sound engineer and teacher. They don’t have a car and life is great. Public transport is amazing. The guy on motorcycle can just ride to his local train, rer or metro station…
Cities are for people. If you need to get into a city, you can park your car outside and take transit in. Taxis, logistical vehicles, and emergency vehicles are the exception, of course.
Anyone complaining about traffic IS part of the problem because they ARE part if the traffic. Imagine how congested Paris would be if all those cyclists had their own cars.
Solutions I can think of : -Build more parking lots on the outskirts of Paris for the workers who live outside Paris and connect those parking lots with public transport. -Build more bicycle lanes to reduce tension with pedestrians. -More parking space in Paris that can only be used for commercial vehicles so private cars/bikes can't use it. Commercial vehicles are still very important.
I love how the lawyer boomer is all up in arms about how bad banning motorized vehicles would be but fails to mention why other than "there will be no life" even though the opposite is pretty much always true. I have only one response to give that guy: ok boomer.
Completely agree with idea that you charge extra for SUV. You use those cars for mountain and muddy roads. City roads has been asphalted. If you like them pay extra charge. They take so much extra space and clearance.
How is the suburbs not doing enough for their citizens in terms of transportation and quality of life Paris's responsibility or problem to resolve? Maybe they should have asked these questions to those mayors??
3 месяца назад
Because the suburb is composed of multiple cities and because trains are not managed by these cities but by the region. Things are on their ways with the Grand Paris Express, scheduled to be mostly completed in 2030. But the city of Paris is anticipating things by almost 10 years and letting people in the suburb pay the consequences whilst they wait for these new trains.
I am a car enthusiast but I have to recognize that cars and motorcycles as useful and enjoyable as they can be are in the end a nuisance at many levels.
I love European cities (I'm Australian) because they were designed for people, before cars existed. All we have here is a return to what they were designed for, removing an element for which they were never intended.
Cities should only allow city/kei cars if at all... Public transit should be the priority way everyone gets around. Full-sized vehicles have no place in cities themselves. Those are for highway/out of town trips and you can rent those!
It's only random suburbans and other people who don't even live in Paris that complain about the car reduction. Every Parisian I know loves it. Every street that cars have been removed from in Paris is a much more liveable street and area in general. Paris is a tiny city with amazing transport and rapidly improving bike paths. Literally no one needs to have cars.
I mean, it's very telling that Paris electorate has voted in the current government that is making these changes, and one of their core platforms that they were elected on was pedestrianisation. So, obviously the majority of Parisians want these changes. Almost all of the complaints from the detractors could be solved with a greater push for public transport increases, which is also part of the plans in Paris. I don't have much sympathy for people who can afford to drive cars in the cities and get upset when they can't do it anymore due to urbanism. I've lived in a city my whole life and had to suffer terrible public transport because people refuse to give up their cars and so the local government does not implement good public transport. My commute to work can be 30 minutes or an hour, depending on the car traffic, because everyone else insists on driving to work and my bus gets stuck in that traffic. It's always a case of "now I can't drive my car/ride my motorcycle to work? i'll have to take the bus like a poor person or ride a bike for a long exhausting time" like every person who can't afford a car has been doing this whole time. It's ridiculous. Where is the sympathy, equality or ambition to change things for the better for everyone? Driving to work perpetuates the cycle of there being no public transit development, because we can't build it effectively in suburbs or other areas because of all the bloody cars!
Typical of able-bodied people. I have mobility issues and need taxis that can take me door-to-door. I cannot walk far enough to use public transport. I do not own a car. I am not against reducing car dependency, but cars are necessary, even if only as a taxi, so it is not possible to fully eliminate them. Delivery vans are also needed to supply shops and restaurants. I live in a 15-minute area. Within a short distance, I have shops, schools, parks, and health care, though little employment, but none of this is accessible to me without an Uber coming to my home. The 15-minute city is not sustainable without vehicles. I've spoken to taxi drivers about them taking on electric vehicles, and everyone said the same. They cannot afford to own their own taxi, most rent it, so an EV is most likely out of their reach. They do not think that an EV will be suitable for their work as many of them drive, during a single shift, further than one charge can take them. Like other places, Paris is not on waging war on car drivers, but also upon people who depend upon vehicles to do their job, and also upon those with limited mobility.
Limited mobility to defend cars is disingenuous, because if we're to include the handicapped we need to include those who can never drive due to a disability. If you need a taxi/uber everytime despite being in a 15 minute city... do you have an electric wheelchair? I mean, seriously. There's a far cheaper option than relying on Uber. If the sidewalks aren't safe enough for wheelchairs, then that's something that needs to be fixed.
I know some people who rely on their bicycles because they can't walk very much. It's their cheapest autonomous transport. Some are on ebikes. The bikes get through narrow places better than a wheelchair and they're faster than crutches. It's not always noticeable that they're disabled except for the rare ones who have a crutch or even a wheelchair fastened at the back of the bike. There's also some neuro divergent people who cope better on a bike than public transport. Taxis are reserved for the odd emergency or when they can afford it..
@@Hepad_ Accessibility and walkability kinda go hand in hand. Because car centric infrastructure makes destinations less accessible by anyone not in a car.
I have never understood why so many people have to live in the same place?... Having lived in Amsterdam, Brussels, Istanbul, Antalya, Jeddah, Helsinki... I've never been more happy and healthy now that I live in a town of only 20'000...
I hear you loud and clear. I've lived both in cities and in rural areas, and I've found that I like the extremes. I like living in places that are either densely urban, or out in the sticks rural. What I hate are car dependent suburbs, which have the drawbacks of both and the advantages of neither. Unfortunately, being American, almost all of the places developed in the past century are car dependent hellscapes, and most Americans seem to like it that way.
It has proven all over the world that taking people out of their cars makes for better living environment. It creates more social interactions, it reduces stress, and it helps the small businesses. Good on Paris. And I'm saying this as a car enthusiast.
The most arrogant demographic (the petite bourgeousie) needs more help right? Lets let small cookie store owners clutter our sidewalks with signs and spill their merchandise out into the streets. Encourage more social interactions? Nah, jsut turn every developed area into one massive shopping mall for tourists.
1. Paris is a ultra high density very small territory. 2. Centralized France has made of Paris the heart of its economy activity. 3. While Paris is 2 million inhabitants, Greater Paris is more like 10 million people. And these 10 million people *have to* go to Paris. 4. Greater Paris public transportation from and to Paris is not good enough and doesn't allow a decent standard of living. I have lived for 10 years in Greater Paris. Not even far away from Paris. I had a train that was getting me to Gare Saint Lazare in 15 minutes. Only that I had a 10 minutes walk to the train station, a 10 to 15 minutes wait for the train, as I said, a 15 minutes ride to Paris, and then 2 metro lines to catch to get to work. Which acounts in total for 1hr15 of commuting (and another 1hr15 of commuting back). And this is when everything goes well. This is not a good standard of living. I see a lot of comments: Park your car outside the city and take the train or metro. Where? How? Where are these infrastructures? They don't exist. And then, let's be honnest. This is France. Who is ready to leave his car for 10 hours a day in a non secured parking lot? Who's ready to find his car broken in, vandalized? And as a side note, before I got a kid, I was living inside Paris. At one point, I felt so tired a out nerverending strikes affecting the metro, I bought a bike. Or more realistically, 3 bikes within a year. All stolen. And meanwhile, vandalized. Optics stolen. Seat stolen (I got it quickly, I had to take the seat off). Brake cables deliberately loosened up... After my 3rd bike got stolen, I quit, I went back to the dreaded Paris metro. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo is acting based on ideology, not on real people lives and needs. Mobilty has to be tackled from a Greater Paris perspective, not just inner Paris.
1. True 2. Not really true: the heart of economical activity is Paris urban area 3. Absolutely false, in fact most people living outside Paris... don't go to Paris on a regular basis. 4. False, altough every additional improvement will be of course welcomed Why would you wait 10 to 15 minutes for a train that runs on a *timetabled* basis? Once in Paris, you could also use a bicycle (either your own or a Vélib') to reach your destination faster. There are over 100,000 parking spaces for cars in train stations around Paris, not mentioning that most Francilians live close enough to a train station to be able to get to it without having to use a car. About half of car owners leave their car on the (unsecured) street, taking a huge amount of public space, usually for free. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo is actually acting based on real people lives and needs. The point of Paris is not being a giant highway / car park for people living in the suburbs.
I suggest moving your work closer to your home or move your home closer to work... you do have control over this decision and it is an important one instead of blaming politicians for your life decisions...
It's the right way in Paris. People need to rethink their behavior. Cities need to be built for humans not for cars! Other cities should follow soon...but there must be a very good local public transportation system. Without that the transformation won't work well.
Imagine living in the most beautiful city that is what it is because of walkability and transit and instead only wanting to drive everywhere and park your car in the midst of it?!?? Mind boggling!!!!
Let’s not forget that we French people always complain, whatever the option put on the table. So looking at the evolution of Paris with a bit of perspective, it’s certainly going in the right direction: better do something now, face a bit of criticism and make adjustments, than do nothing and complain when it’s too late ;-)
ahahha. more bikes get in your way? if all the bikes become cars then you'd have stuck traffic from 9 to 9. they talk about bikes taking space but not about the parked cars that take up 1 lane on each side in a lot of places?! ahahah, this must be paid propaganda. wonder how much for such a video
There was a war on pedestrians and cyclists that lasted through decades and the car owners did not even notice, because they have been so accustomed to being pandered to. Anyway the younger generations will be a lot harder to convince when it comes to buying cars they mostly don't need.
Also, the Grand Paris express project was made to connect suburbs from one to another, and NOT to the city center (except for the already existing line 14 which is to be extended). Those connections from Paris to the suburb already exist, actually much of the subway and RER lines have terminus in the suburbs. There is plenty of documentation on the Grand Paris express project online, or the map of public transportation in Paris region, this is clearly poor journalism. Do better, DW
Though I’m all for taking the cars out of the cities, I feel it became quite dangerous for pedestrians, i ‘ve been in situations I was almost run over by bicycles and scooters. They are too fast and silent. The right solution is to have public transport in quantity and quality
@@donteatthechalk no I think that adding more bicycles and scooters without physical separation from the pedestrians is more dangerous for both pedestrians and ciclysts. The space for cars was defined we knew if we were on the sidewalk we would be fine, now in some areas is not that clear.
I am an avid cyclist but as a pedestrian, walking in many urban centers, I absolutely despise the arrogance of most cyclists. Nowhere is this more evident than in The Netherlands where the cyclists are essentially apathetic bullies. Bikes parked everywhere on the sidewalk, you have to walk around them and all of a sudden, 'ring, ring' from a 'look-how-important-I-am' cyclist. They simply do not see why the pedestrian has to walk elsewhere. Nope. Doesn't matter, bike lane or road, pedestrians are never comfortable there. Environmental virtue-seekers drive me crazy. I also feel for the motorists. Rent too expensive? Live elsewhere. Money you save on rent, you inevitably have to pay in parking. Sure, fair deal...these pontificating academics 'know' what they are doing, being the types to live in the real world (cue eye rolling).
Bully. 'Bedfellow' cyclists are every pedestrians fear. Thanks for the tip about the Netherlands. Majesty on two wheels 'look-how-important-I-am' attitude. Versus envirnomental necessity-seekers 'Envirnomental virtue-seekers'.
@@philfluther2713 Glad I could help. But yeah, It is a nerve-wracking experience. As a pedestrian you have to watch out for both cars and cyclists. Another tip: avoid the Heineken Museum in Amsterdam. Rip-off.
i can understand cars, but motorcycles? it makes no sense, motorcycles are proven to be good match for cities, not as much traffic, and not demanding in terms of parking either.
Noise pollution, micro plastics from tires, still taking up more space than a bicycle, and air pollution are a few reasons, unless you mean electric motorcycles, in which case the first 3 reasons still apply. If cars are a bad match for cities, motorcycles are a ‘good’ match, then bicycles are a great match and taking transit/walking is the best! :D The less private property storage we need in public space the more public and useful those places become.
Now Paris is just a mess, public transport is overcrowded and dirty, streets are full of never ending renovations filled with litter where nobody actually works, taxis and vans take more than twice the time to get anywhere, bicycles are a danger to each other, pedestrians and traffic.The major train stations aren’t connected to each other and no plan to solve this. Yeah everything’s just great
Public transportation is under the authority/responsibility of the region Île-de-France, which, I agree, has done quite a bad job. The main danger on the streets are actually motor vehicles drivers, which are involved in 98% of collision, even though they only account for 15% of the traffic. The major train stations are actually connected to each other.
To say that public transportation is not developed in Paris extra muros is false, the regional metro system is extensive and gets you to the city centre quite easily. You could park your car close to the station and continue on train
Whoever thinks we can live with cars, should consider if it is safe to let your little children play in a street with car, or breathe the gases cars produce
Lots of ( mostly ignorant ) opinions - where are the numbers ? For most cities, just remove the massive car subsidy and cars will go away - no 'dogma' required, just end the massive economic distortion. Commuting 30Km into the city, without a train, is crazy.
Why give so much importance to the words of this lawyer? He's just a representative of the old generation of Parisians who would have liked nothing to change.
When I spent six months in Paris consulting for SNCF, I went around exclusively by public transport (which has been improved even further since then.) I didn't even use taxi, even once, not even from and to the CDG airport. A colleague from SNCF picked me up once at my flat in 16th arrondissement and we drove to the project office in Saint-Denis, near Stade de France. It took us 15 minutes longer than my usual commute by metro. But can you imagine Monsieur De Caumont in metro or RER, with unwashed masses? He certainly can't.
Parisian car drivers are very aggressive. You need to be overly prudent as a pedestrian even when using pedestrian crossings. Thank you to Anne Hidalgo for all the recent progress ❤
Good for Anne Hidalgo for listening to the Parisians who elected her rather than the suburbanites who didn't. That said, if she doesn't want those suburbanites driving into Paris proper then the system should be set up to give them credible alternatives, such as good transit in the suburbs as well as park-and-ride stations so that they don't need to drive all the way into the city.
That's where you find the incoherences of the governance in Paris : the mayor of Paris is reponsible for the street layout inside of Paris, not for the public transit, be it inside or outside of Paris. That's the Region president. So she does what she was elected for : adapt the city center layout to the parisian's needs.
The vast majority of suburbanites who drive to Paris chose to drive, they do not have to, they have plenty of public transport options. The vast public transport projects which are alluded to in the report aim to link suburbs so that suburbanites need not travel thru Paris in order to reach an other suburb. These projects are not aimed at linking the suburbs to Paris. Those links already exist.
I found Passalacqua’s points (or at least the ones reported by DW) a little strange. It looks like he says no for the sake of it. He claims that mobility is not necessarily the issue, the way we build cities is. Then when confronted with 15 minute cities he says that that also doesn’t work. Also his point regarding le Champs Élysées is not very clear. The mayor wants to improve the area and he claims that by making it better it will attract more tourists which is a problem because they fly to Paris. But that is silly. Of course if you make the city better more people will visit, so what? Should we make our cities worse so that tourists don’t bother flying in?
I don't understand why this video is so one-sided. There are four times as many people interviewed who are against than who are in favour, while most urban planners would praise most aspects of Paris' transformation.
I'm surprised some people find this video biased against the changes in Paris. That certainly was not our intention, and some viewers on the other side find it biased in favor of the changes! In any case, thanks for your perspective and we'll keep it in mind.
